TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 816
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....85.13 (Rupees Four crore seventy two lakh forty five thousand six hundred eighty five and paise thirteen) including interest as on June 2017 and the claim is within the period of limitation and well within the jurisdiction of this Bench. 3. The Petitioner/Operational Creditor is engaged in the business of providing Stock Broking Services and other financial services including equity Investments, Futures and options, Commodity Trading, Currency Trading, Mutual Funds, Company Deposits, Bonds and Insurance. Petitioner has submitted that at the request of the respondent/Corporate Debtor, the petitioner provided the said services to a corporate debtor which is marked and annexed as Annexure-'A-4' as proof of rendering services by the corporate debtor. 4. It is further submitted that out of the total dues Rs. 4,72,45,685.13 is the defaulted/unpaid amount. After just adjustment and appropriation balance amount to the tune of Rs. 4,72,45,685.13 remained due and payable by a corporate debtor to the operational creditor but the corporate debtor failed to do so. Therefore, the operational creditor is entitled to Rs. 4,72,45,685.13 (Rupees Four crore seventy two lakh forty five thousand ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e debit balance amounting to Rs. 4,72,45,685.13/- (Rupees Four crore seventy two lakh forty five thousand six hundred eighty five and paise thirteen) filed the petition. 9. The respondent further contends that the petitioner without asking for margin shortfall liquidated stock of the respondent illegally and therefore intimated the said fact before the IGRP (Investors Grievance Resolution Panel) and to NSE (National Stock Exchange of India) on 22.09.2017 and to the petitioner about margin shortfall on 18.05.2016. The panel at the IGRP passed the order and referred the matter for Arbitration at the NSE and the petitioner approached before the adjudicating authority illegally, contented by the respondent. 10. Heard both side at length. Upon hearing the argument and considering the contentions and on perusal of the records the points that arise for consideration is: (1) Whether the respondent succeeded in proving existence of a genuine dispute as alleged in the reply? (2) Whether pendency of an Arbitration proceedings before the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. is a bar to the petitioner to file the petition under section 9 of I&B Code? Point No. 1 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d above. So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application". 13. The Hon'ble Supreme court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank 143 SCL 625 has held that "the moment there is the existence of such a dispute, the operational creditor gets out of the clutches of the code." To understand the principle laid down in the citation above referred it is good to read para 29 of the judgment. It read as follows: - "29. The scheme of Section 7 stands in contrast to the scheme under Section 8 where an operational creditor is, on the occurrence of a default, to first deliver a demand notice of the unpaid debt to the operational debtor in the manner provided in Section 8(1) of the Code. Under Section 8(2), the corporate debtor can, within a period of 10 days of receipt of the demand notice or copy of the invoice mentioned in sub-section (1), bring to the notice of the operational creditor the existence of a dispute or the record of the pendency of a suit or arbitration proceedings, which is pre-existing - i.e. before such notice or invoice was received by the corporate debtor. The m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ingly. Point No. 2 17. The next contention of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent is that an Arbitration proceeding was initiated at the instances of the respondent before IGRP and IGRP vide order dated 22.09.2017 has referred the dispute for Arbitration at the NSE of India Ltd and therefore this petition is not maintainable. An application (IA 524 of 2017) for stay of the proceedings before this Tribunal also filed by the respondent. To substantiate his said contention, he referred Annexure VI a copy of claim submitted before the NSE and the reply Annexure VII filed by the petitioner before NSE. According to him arbitration proceeding initiated by the NSE is pending before the date of filing this petition and therefore this petition is not maintainable. 18. Reference of Annexure VI shows that a claim petition for initiating arbitration proceedings against the petitioner was filed by the respondent before the IGRP and IGRP vide order dated 22.09.2017 referred the dispute for Arbitration to NSE and it was received by the NSE on 08.11.2017. Annexure VII is the reply filed by the petitioner in the above said claim petition by the petitioner before the NSE. A scrutiny of above ....